Spoilers ahead.

Since 2019, DC fans have been waiting with bated breath for the follow-up to the hit movie “Joker” (2019). The original film was an experimental masterpiece, delving into a new, murderous and somehow more human version of the Joker. While there were concerns about the sequel being pitched as a musical, with Lady Gaga set to co-star as Harley Quinn, I think this premise genuinely had the potential to add to the series’ oddities. The story of the Joker and Harley Quinn has been told well many times before, most recently with “Harley Quinn” (2019) and “Birds of Prey”(2020), so director Todd Phillips needed to deliver on the strangeness.

The film picks up two years after “Joker” (2019) left off, with Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix)—that’s the Joker’s real name in Phillips’ franchise—having spent time in Arkham Asylum after being caught and charged with murder. We see Arthur miserable in Arkham, having lost weight along with all his characteristic joy. His mood picks up when he meets Harley “Lee” Quinn (Lady Gaga), a patient in the non-criminal ward at Arkham. From there, the film becomes part love story and part court procedural. The Joker and Lee fall in love, and she becomes obsessed with his public persona. The court case quickly descends into chaos as Lee manipulates him into embracing the Joker persona and admitting to further crimes. This fails miserably, and Arthur is sentenced to death. Lee abandons him as she loves Joker, not Arthur. The film closes with Arthur being murdered by an unnamed young inmate at Arkham.

A definitive highlight of the film was the interspersed musical numbers. They were used to show that Arthur Fleck was slipping deeper into delusion and his devotion to Lee. From a technical perspective, it was really interesting to see Arthur prancing around and fully committing to the musical theater style in a realistic setting. The initial musical numbers did not take place in a stylized environment—they took place in Arkham Asylum, which makes it clear that the musical numbers are a delusion, and adds to the concern the audience has for Arthur. However, Phillips does not stray from the traditional glitzy musical style, having two large-scale numbers taking place in full glam. My only complaint is that the movie did not commit enough to the musical style. Most of the songs included were repeated throughout, and there were more scenes of characters singing at each other briefly than fully-fledged musical numbers. “Joker: Folie à Deux” was always going to be strange, so it had nothing to fear by going all-in on being a musical.  

As always, Phoenix does not disappoint with his performance. He makes a six-time murderer somehow sympathetic, striking a balance between justifiable and understandable. His ability to laugh so sincerely and portray a variety of emotions through this laughter is truly astonishing. Phoenix also delivers on his usual drastic weight change, casting an unsettlingly bony figure that only adds to the audience’s concern for Arthur. He clearly gives his all to each of his roles, and the Joker was no exception.

It is a well-observed phenomenon that Lady Gaga is generally cast because of her stardom, not her acting ability. With that comes poorly written roles, and after “House of Gucci” (2021), expectations from audiences were low. She is a perfectly adequate actress, and her portrayal of Lee was as obsessive as the script required. However, Lady Gaga is a singer, and her talents were wasted here. There are times when singing in an understated manner or somewhat poorly can add to character depth, but this should not be done for the entire movie. If the songs are meant to be part of Arthur’s delusions, it does not make sense to make Lady Gaga sing worse for the sake of gritty realism. All this does is detract from the experience. I would, however, recommend Lady Gaga’s accompanying album “Harlequin” (2024), which does not disappoint. Most importantly, this version of Harley Quinn lacked depth.

It appeared that the writers did not know who this version of Harley Quinn was. The story of the Joker and Harley is fairly simple: Harleen Quinzel is a psychiatrist at Arkham Asylum who falls in love with the Joker after he manipulates her. She then gets wrapped up in an abusive relationship with him and turns to a life of crime like Harley Quinn. In a huge departure from comic book material, it appears that Lee is the one manipulating Joker due to an unexplained interest on her end. She lies to him to get his love, and it is only briefly mentioned that she has a psychiatry background. The audience knows nothing about Lee’s past and the story seems uninterested in her, which is odd because it appears Arthur genuinely loves her. While I have personal issues with turning a story about victims of abuse on its head, I could accept it if it was done well. However, this was not done well.

My major issue with the film was its ending. It has been made abundantly clear through the press that this universe with the Joker was meant to be exploratory. Arthur Fleck is not the Joker’s name in the comics; Batman is not yet Batman—the audience knew that this story was going to be different. With the first film, “Joker” (2019) took advantage of this and dug deep into Arthur’s character. It was a masterpiece of a villain’s backstory. “Joker: Folie à Deux” treats the exploratory concept as a way to say the audience does not need to be invested. It is a risk to kill the main character in any story, especially if the audience is emotionally invested in that one character. When the unnamed young inmate kills Arthur, I did not feel pain, I felt betrayed. The movie officially closes with the inmate carving a smile onto his face in the background, hinting that he could be the real Joker. However, Phillips has claimed he is done with this universe and does not intend to carry on with a new Joker. Two very long films were spent building up Arthur as one character, and the audience gets no closure and no one to pass on emotional investment to. The ending was nothing—the story was hollow.

Aside from the ending, I would not consider this movie a complete waste of time. The film is genuinely enjoyable up until the end. The performances are committed, and the film is visually stunning. Gritty shots of Arkham pose a beautifully striking contrast to the big-budget musical scenes. The costume department outdid themselves, especially with the costumes for the ’70s styles and the rooftop dance scene; I struggled to find any aesthetic gripes. I just cannot help but once again feel betrayed by the ending. When “Joker: Folie à Deux” comes out on streaming platforms, I encourage you to watch it, but do not spend money on a movie ticket.